Appeal No. 96-3842
Application 08/489,696
at least one of said first and second contact beams to secure
said dual beam contact within an electronic device.
Given that claim 9 on appeal is directed to a dual
beam contact per se, appellants’ argument (brief, pages 2-3)
that the patent to Sterling does not show “an aperture through
[a] dividing element” is of no moment, since claim 9 does not
positively set forth such an aperture and since the contact
(12) as seen in either Figures 1-6 or in Figure 10 of Sterling
is
clearly capable of being inserted through an appropriately
sized aperture in a dividing element of an electronic device
to make a connection on opposite sides of the dividing element
as
inferentially set forth in claim 9 on appeal. Moreover, with
particular regard to the contact seen in Figure 5 of Sterling,
we note that if the insulator block (14) and the retainer
strip (33) are together considered to be the “dividing
element,” then the contact (12) does include an elbow portion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007